Secondary menu

You are here

Blogs

It's becoming pretty clear that InGrid possesses one of the savvier marketing departments in the industry. I showed you over the summer how they weaseled their way into all kinds of newspapers with free "editorial." (Good for them. I admire weasels.) Now they've landed themselves a story in the New York Times that isn't exactly complimentary to the alarm industry as a whole.
As you might expect in what appears to be a planted sort of story, it's sort of riddled with inaccuracies. I'm not one who slags the New York Times as a rule, but there's some pretty embarrassing stuff here, and I don't think John Biggs is a frontline NYT reporter.
Wirelessly, Home Security Becomes a D.I.Y. Project
By JOHN BIGGS
WHEN Ken Jongsma built his new house, he found that the builders had already installed a basic security system Ã¢â‚¬â€ sometimes called a prewire. A tinkerer and engineer, Mr. Jongsma, 50, decided to upgrade and monitor the system on his own.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“What most people do not understand is that a residential alarm prewire is a come-on by alarm companies to get you to sign up for their Ã¢â‚¬â€ usually expensive Ã¢â‚¬â€ monitoring,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said.
A "come-on." Or, a sales tactic. Or, a value-add installed by the builder. Why is this article so combative toward the alarm industry from the get-go?
Until recently, Mr. JongsmaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s attempt to install and maintain his own security system would have been impossible. Now, however, with a little knowledge, even nonengineers can add a security system to their homes for less than a standard prewired installation by a professional.
Most security systems consist of two parts: the hardware and the monitoring service. For decades, the hardware (window and door sensors and motion detectors, for example) was often installed by professionals, as it required some wiring and cabling.
And while those sensors may have been connected to a siren or flashing lights, the real benefit to having an alarm has always been that someone will call the police when it goes off. For many years, that was also something the alarm companies were happy to provide Ã¢â‚¬â€ witness the countless television ads that have featured thoughtful and hyper-competent people staffing an alarm companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s command HQ, ready to call the police and offer reassurance to the homeowner.
Hmm. I must have missed those "countless" ads. And is it bad to be hyper-competent? It's a benefit, right?
As King Gillette discovered with razors and cellphone providers have popularized with monthly fees, the real money to be made in alarms is not in the hardware Ã¢â‚¬â€ itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in the monitoring. The hardware can be subsidized by the security company almost to the point where it is free, but paying an alarm service about $30 a month for years and years to watch over your system more than makes those companies whole.
Okay. Nothing new there. What's the point? People aren't supposed to try to make money in this country. We should be trying to build business plans that fail and don't make money?
Newer systems, however, can reduce the total cost of alarm ownership. Instead of relying on installers to rewire the house, new Ã¢â‚¬Å“security systems in a boxÃ¢â‚¬Â use a combination of battery, wireless and cellular technology to make installation simple and quick for most homeowners. Some systems can even bypass monitoring firms directly and contact the owner instead of a third party when the alarm is set off. One such system is sold by InGrid Home Security. The basic package, available for $199 at ingridhome.com, includes an alarm console, a phone that doubles as an alarm control and three window or door sensors. The entire kit fits in a box about as big as a shoebox.
The sensors stick to doors and windows with sticky tape and are completely wireless. They are powered by tiny watch batteries and connect automatically with a few taps on the cordless handset. You can monitor the system online, even taking video and images using an optional video camera. The system took about an hour to install in a two-story home. No tools were necessary but there were a few snags while activating sensors and base stations.
And that would be better than someone else installing the alarm system wirelessly for a $99 initial fee why? It's better to do the work yourself and pay $100 more? What am I missing here? It's pretty clear that all of this guy's information is being supplied by InGrid. How is the total cost of ownership less, exactly?
The monitoring service costs $20 a month and discounts are available with a yearly contract.
What? I thought we were getting rid of the monitoring service. And where did that magical $30 a month figure come from before? It's a total straw-man argument. Set up some mythical $30 a month standard, then - WOW - InGrid is $10 a month cheaper than that! This is absurd. There are plenty of places the reporter could have acquired an industry standard for a monitoring fee (the CSAA comes to mind), and then maybe there could have been some discussion of what that monitoring fee gets you. And InGrid isn't using some kind of special monitoring service.
They use Guardian Protection! What, do they charge old dummy alarm customers $30 a month for monitoring, but new self-install smarty-pants $20 a month? This is the height of crappy reporting. How much does Guardian charge if they install an InGrid system and then monitor it? How much does ADS charge when they install an InGrid system and then monitor it? Then we might have a real total cost of ownership discussion that made at least some sense. Right now? Not so much.
A video camera costs $130 and temperature and water sensors Ã¢â‚¬â€ for basements or unattended summer homes Ã¢â‚¬â€ cost $60 each. The service offers 24-hour monitoring as well as access to video feeds over the Internet. Smoke and siren detectors cost $100 and $50 respectively. LaserShield, another company offering a monitoring and hardware package, focuses more on motion detectors in the home. The starter kit, which costs $200 and is available at lasershield.net, includes a motion sensor and keychain remote. It requires a standard telephone connection for monitoring and for sending alerts; monitoring costs an additional $20 a month. You can control the system through a Web site.
Again, why do you want to pay more to install the system yourself? And why do you want to be the one installing your motion detectors, etc., when you have no clue about range and sensitivity and whether your dog is going to set them off? This is an option, sure, but not the obvious choice it's being made out to be.
Within a few weeks , the company will release the LaserShield Pro, a professional grade security system that is designed for easy do-it-yourself installation. For under $300, the new pro kit includes a motion detector, control panel, and two door or window sensors. For an extra charge, LaserShield will also offer a flood detector, a glass-break detector and a wireless siren.
The starter kit is fairly easy to install. You simply place the motion sensor in one room and the base in another, near the Internet or telephone lines. The alarm announces when it has been tripped and begins by calling your own phone number and then notifying the police if there is no reply. It took about 10 minutes to set up the hardware and activate the system.
So, the inexpertly installed motion detector calls you on your cell phone when your dog sets it off. You're in a meeting and the phone is off. Next call is to the cops! I doubt there will be any false alarms generated there. Did anybody clue this guy into the false alarm problem at all? Doubtful. (Also, this guy can't decide if LaserShield is one word or two, but we'll let that slide.)
For an additional $230 you can buy Laser ShieldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Cyclone, a stand-alone cellular transmitter that provides a connection to the companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s monitoring station even if phone lines are cut. Adding the Cyclone increases the monthly monitoring fee to $30. Those without landline telephones or VoIP services like Vonage will have to purchase Laser ShieldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Sparrow for an additional $130 (plus an extra $10 a month), which allows the alarm system to work over the Internet.
What? Now we're back to $30 a month? That's what those old-school guys charge, right? So, I do all the work myself, I pay more for the initial package, and then I pay the same for the monitoring? Wow. That's a way better deal. Where do I sign up?
Look, I'm being overly dramatic and I know that monitoring fees are all over the map in terms of what you pay for what types of service, etc. And that's my point. This isn't an in-depth exploration of whether you should DIY your alarm system or not. This is just a long (and it is long, so he did have the space to actually call someone from the industry - or call anyone, for that matter; the only quotes in here are from some random guy who self-installed a system, and he's an engineer!) advertisement for InGrid and LaserShield. What's the point of writing that?
There's a reason LaserShield and InGrid are courting alarm dealers to install their products: People don't want to install their own security systems. And why should they? Look, I could install my own brand-new washer if I wanted to, but why would I? If I buy it from Sears, they come and do it for me, and then I get a service plan and all kinds of add-ons if I want them and that's where Sears makes their buck. Good for them if my washer never breaks. Good for me if (and of course, it does, generally when I'm on the road and the kids are sick) breaks and doesn't work. Of course, I could buy it online somewhere and have it appear at my door and lug it around and screw everything in and then fix it myself when it breaks, but why would I want to do that? I've got two freakin' kids that keep me plenty busy.
Couldn't there be some discussion of the fact that InGrid and LaserShield products are both also sold by traditional alarm dealers? That this wireless thing is indeed cool, but mostly because it brings down the cost of professionally installed alarm systems? I just feel like this is a really pointless article to be in the New York Freakin' Times.
Even big telecommunications companies are getting into the D.I.Y. security game. Steve Loop, director for business development at AT&T, says that home security has benefited from wireless connections. That is what prompted AT&T Wireless to offer AT&T Remote Monitoring.
Originally aimed at small-business owners, the AT&T products do not contact the police in an emergency but instead send cellular text and e-mail messages to the homeowner when something is amiss. The basic kit starts at $299 and $25 a month. It includes one door sensor, a system controller and a remote camera. It also includes a system for transmitting video over home power lines.
The kit also supports add-ons like temperature, motion and water sensors.
Mr. Loop said he would not call AT&T remote monitoring a fully fledged security system. The system is truly D.I.Y. because the owner has to follow through when the alarm is set off.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“The system lets you keep in touch with locations that matter to you when youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not there,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said.
Mr. Loop said that some AT&T employees used the system to keep track of dogs and cats and even keep an eye on a babysitter while at work. The additional sensors act as triggers, allowing homeowners to keep track of sump pumps, heaters or air conditioners remotely.
The installation and activation took about 30 minutes.
I can't even get into how silly this part about AT&T is. For one, they charge a monthly fee for what's not even, by their own definition, a security system (wasn't that what we were trying to avoid?). For another thing, there is a monitored service you can get from AT&T as well, and it's run through C.O.P.S. And, finally, why are we talking about AT&T employees who use the system? Are there no AT&T customers?
Not everyone, however, wants to go the D.I.Y. route. Dave Simon, spokesman for BrinkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Home Security, pointed out that many installations benefited from having a local expert installer. Experts can help decide which windows and doors to arm and which add-ons to include. Mr. Simon estimates that a full-service installation would cost about $200 for a basic system and a few hundred more for a more complex system. BrinkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s also offers a monitoring service for $30 a month.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“BrinkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s installs the systems and monitors as well. Not every company does that,Ã¢â‚¬Â he said. Most companies, he said, hire outside contractors to plan and install security systems using their products.
This is classic. I expect this was the conversation in the news room:
Editor: Dude, John, this story is utter crap. You didn't even talk to anyone in the security industry. What, did you do this whole story last night? Call some alarm company and get a quote or two for Christ's sake!
John: Okay, hold on a minute.
10 minutes pass
John: Okay, I'm all set. I talked to this guy at Brink's and he gave me some stuff we can just tack on the bottom. No sense actually incorporating it up into the story where it would have made sense. And get this? They charge $30 a month for monitoring, so we're totally all set!
Editor: Sweet. Let's grab a drink.
But let's go back to the central premise here: You can install your own system if you want. And how much did it cost? $199 for InGrid. So, let's see, I could install the system myself, pay $199, and have it monitored for $20 a month. Or I could have a professional person come to my house, install the system for $199 (I'm guessing Dave's rounding up), and have it monitored for $30 a month, but also have a service plan in case anything breaks, have an actual person to call if there are false alarm issues, etc.
That's a no-brainer if you ask me. DIY, baby!

Well, the results are in. I'll admit that for the first time in four presidential elections I've been able to participate in, I voted for a major party candidate and voted for Obama. In the end, I threw calculated analysis and tax issues and much of the rest out the window and voted for him because I liked the guy. I'm not ashamed to admit that at all.
I think I was finally swayed, embarrassingly enough, by this interview he did with Chris Berman on Monday night:
A playoff for college football. Man, that's a good answer. McCain went with performance enhancing drugs in sports, and I agree that's a problem, but that's not an answer a true sports fan would give. While PEDs affect my intellectual appreciation of sports, it doesn't really affect the way I watch the games. I never sit there and watch Manny Ramirez hit a 450-foot blast over the Monster and think, "Gee, I hope he's not on steroids." I think (or rather yell), "Holy smokes, that is a bomb!"
Similarly, when Penn State is undefeated and ranked third behind Alabama and Texas Tech and faces the possibility of getting hosed out of the national title game, I think, "You've got to be #@*@*'ing kidding me!"
Obama understood that Berman was asking him for a fan's answer, and he gave a fan's answer. And he knew his audience. Obama seems to have an empathetic quality that's rare and impressive, an ability to understand what people are going through and speak to them in their own language. I find that to be one of the most important qualities a person can have, and it's something I've sought to teach my children, to get them to step outside of themselves and their own concerns and to understand what it is the next person is thinking and feeling.
I was incredibly proud when my girl's kindergarten teacher told us one of her best qualities was that she doesn't always need to get a turn. When Obama told the American people in his excellent victory speech last night that people would have to make sacrifices, would have to work for a common good, all I could think about was that people needed to understand that sometimes they don't get a turn, and they need to deal with that.
I'm a bit of a federalist, and a libertarian, and I believe the governments that run our local towns and states need far more of the attention that we give to these federal issues. I'd like many of the responsibilities of the federal government to be transferred to the states, and I'd like the federal government to stick to its core founding jobs: protect our borders, interact with foreign governments, run the Post Office, insure unadulterated interstate commerce - those kinds of things. So, with those things said, I want a president who empowers us to solve our own problems, who is a powerful and charismatic ambassador for our country, and who is interested in the most-important needs of the people he leads.
In the end, I thought Obama was that guy. Plus, he and his speechwriters are some of the most elegant wordsmiths I've ever come across and, as someone who writes for a living, I'm swayed by that on a very gut level. It's really, really hard to write speeches that well.
Pundits will now rush to predict the impact of an Obama presidency on the country, and, more pertinently to this blog, on the security industry. Some of you, like John Honovich, will be pretty pessimistic. I understand that impulse. I'm withholding my predictions until I see what kind of cabinet he puts in place, what kind of overall shape his administration will take. It's certainly true that a change of administrations likely to be this drastic will put a few initiatives on hold, and some projects might be delayed, but the vast, vast majority of you, my readers, are not doing government-related work, and a switch of administrations is not going to affect your newly won school project, or condo development (are there any of those going up anymore?), or retail chain installation. The larger economic forces are far more powerful than the head of our federal government right now.
I won't jinx things by saying Obama couldn't possibly make the economic environment much worse, but I will say that the current plan isn't exactly coming up roses, so it's worth giving him a shot.
Senator McCain's speech last night wasn't quite as eloquent or well put together as Obama's, but his sentiment was equally apt and impressive. He called for his supporters to convey their support to his new president, as he would, and to put their energy toward repairing our tattered country. He was magnanimous and every bit the American hero I've always thought him to be. He wasn't bitter, and I hope those of you out there who were opposed to an Obama presidency will similarly put aside potential bitterness and at least give the guy a chance. Maybe his tax plans suck (that's a sophisticated economic term), maybe his energy plans are pie in the sky, maybe he's naive about the level of enmity that exists for American democracy. We'll certainly find out.
But I feel good about the country this morning, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

If you want in on ONVIF, the Axis, Bosch, Sony collaboration to create a global open specification for IP Video integration, you can now register for their first open house here.
It's Dec. 3 and 4, in Washington, DC, at the Sheraton Crystal City.
A month's notice isn't bad. Let me know if you think you're going. I'm going to inquire as to whether the press is invited.

Anyone who's worked on a political campaign will tell you that, win or lose, you spend the immediate post-campaign days swearing you'll never do it again--it's way too much work and it's all-consuming. And you really mean it, until the next election season when you get sucked into another campaign.
The last time I worked full time on a campaign was a lot of years ago, just before kids. (Literally...my daughter was due on election day, but arrived early on Halloween.) The days of working full time on a campaign are over for me, but there's one day I always miss being right there in the middle of the action...today. Election day.
We've all heard what the pundits and pollsters have to say about what's going to happen today, but the cliche is true: There's only one poll that counts.
Make sure you get to your polling place and vote!

Think you've made a rational, well thought-out decision on how to vote in tomorrow's Presidential election? According to this story in yesterday's Boston Globe, we have less control over our political preferences than we may think.
The story's about a study in a journal called Science, which shows that our political preferences are the result of our reactions to different stimuli, and are therefore pretty much pre-programmed at birth.
From the story: Science, found that our immediate, unconscious reaction to threat - how much we startle at frightening images and noises - determines our political views on specific issues like gun control, national defense, the Iraq war, [In case you were wondering, here's the security-related part of this story] domestic surveillance, the torture of political prisoners, and even immigration.

Since Diebold's finances have drawn a lot of attention over the past year, what with the UTC bid, etc., I thought I'd post a link to their earnings report. Things look pretty good:
Diebold, Incorporated today reported 2008 third quarter revenue of $890.3 million, an increase of 20.2 percent from the third quarter of 2007. The company also reported net income of $46.5 million during the third quarter of 2008, compared to net income of $28.1 million in the comparable period in 2007, an increase of 65.2 percent. Earnings for the third quarter of 2008 were $.70 per share, compared to $.42 per share in the third quarter of 2007, an increase of 66.7 percent.
I guess the recession hasn't hit Diebold too hard. A net margin of 5 percent is solid, if not completely world-beating, but a 20 percent increase in revenue year over year, without a significant acquisition is better than most.
Unfortunately, security is not exactly the engine of his growth:
Total revenue for the 2008 third quarter was up 20.2 percent. Financial self-service products and services revenue increased 18.3 percent over the prior period, while total security revenue decreased 6.4 percent. During the quarter, election systems revenue in Brazil was $58.6 million, representing more than 85 percent of the increase in total election systems revenue. Of the 20.2 percent increase in total revenue, the net positive currency impact was 3.4 percentage points.

It's halloween. If your office is anything like my office, there is a great deal of time-squandering going on with costume discussion and silliness, so you're not looking for anything particularly substantive, I'm sure.
So, here, are some fun Halloween stories.
First up, a solid police blotter from Minny-St. Paul:
OCT. 3
Theft. Halloween decorations were stolen from a deck of a home on the 1200 block of Trailwood N. The homeowner said she heard kids on her deck at approximately 10:30 p.m. She had posted a sign stating that there was video surveillance and heard the kids reading the sign aloud and then they left.
So, the kids read the sign out loud, then stole the decorations anyway? And was there actually video surveillance or not? And why would anyone want to steal Halloween decorations? I thought kids just generally stomped and ruined Halloween decorations.
This is a piece on "boneyards" (I wasn't the first to make the Halloween connection), which look like an interesting new market for video surveillance:
Each yard is 7,240 square feet. The yards will be secure from the outside, with walls topped with razor wire. Tenants will have the option of video surveillance as well. On the inside, yards will be separated by chain link fence, which can be removed if a tenant wants to lease two yards. There's a common employee parking area west of the yards.
Basically, it's a spot for contractors to store their stuff, out in the middle of the desert. Sounds like a good application for solar.
Here's a story on video cameras catching pumpkin stealers who wanted to be pumpkin rollers:
Three Chagrin Falls teens were arrested for allegedly stealing six pumpkins Oct. 14 from a home on Everton Avenue in Solon.
The teens -- an 18-year-old woman, a 17-year-old boy and a 17-year-old girl -- said they planned on using the pumpkins in the annual Chagrin Falls pumpkin roll.
Solon police learned of the theft Oct. 20. That was when the homeowner, who caught the teens on a security video camera, palyed the video for Chagrin Falls school administrators, who then identified the teens.
Ironically, the same teens were also caught stealing pumpkins in Chagrin Falls and were arrested by Chagrin Falls officers.
The trio was charged with theft.
This pumpkin roll event sounds pretty fun, though I've got to agree with the commenter below the story that it's somewhat curious that the police are providing protection for the rollers. I'm torn here, really. On one hand, I can imagine myself being 17 and thinking that was a pretty damn fun event. On the other hand, I would never want my daughter to attend such a thing and wind up like the "18-year-old woman" who wound up in the clink thanks to pumpkin theft.
Also, please note the incorrect use of the word "ironically" in the above quote. A: Ironically is an adverb and should only be used to modify a verb in a construction such as "he curtsied ironically"; B: It would not be ironic that teens caught stealing pumpkins once would be caught again. Clearly, they are serial pumpkin stealers!
And, finally, a story on selecting the proper equipment for ghost hunting. Maybe some of your can make a buck or two selling IR illuminators to ghost hunters. Hey, you're always talking about finding additional revenue streams.
Happy Halloween.

I've often embedded videos here relating to security, whether it be a copper theft illustration, or silly surveillance captures, or product pitches. Generally, those videos have been posted to YouTube, which then provides an "embed" code, which I slap into the blog and, voila, you get to watch the video without actually having to leave my page.
Of course, YouTube is only the best known of on the online video sites. You can post video just about anywhere now, and you can find videos all over the place on the Web. (Soon, you'll find many more videos on our home page, but that's for another day.) Now, the major manufacturers are starting to post video sites. They're mostly used to pitch their own products (obviously), but that doesn't mean they're totally without value.
Right now, the best is Honeywell's (and I'm not just saying that because they sponsor our newswire). Not only do they have a bunch of product videos on their Security Channel, and an RSS Video feed, which is cool, but they've created an online video series, called Security Stories, that's professionally done in a Bob Villa kind of way, with a guy named Tony Martin traveling to visit different Honeywell dealers around the country and going out on jobs with them. I wouldn't hesitate to say the episodes are actually fairly entertaining.
But, here, I'll post one for you and you can be the judge:
See the production value on that? That doesn't come cheap.
Bosch has another big video site, which you can find here. It's a little clunky in both Safari and Firefox, but it's pretty new, so I'm sure they're still working out some kinks. I get a lot of file errors, saying the videos won't load, and when I went to the RSS feed, I got an error message and a bunch of code. So there's that.
But there are also a large amount of videos up there, and they're easily categorized so you can find the stuff you might be looking for. Basically, it's all product demos and training videos, but I could see how they'd be useful for new hires, especially, who need as much info as possible on what the products can do and how you install them.
Here, for example, is a simple video showing what anti-loitering analytics can do (you'd see it here, but I can't get their embed code to work in blogger).
I know, it's not exactly scintillating stuff, but if you're trying to add demonstration videos to your own web site, this is a quick and easy way to do it. Or you can just call this up when you're on a customer visit, showing some of the potential solutions in real time. I'm sure they'll work out some of the kinks in short order.
I'm actually really surprised that more video manufacturers don't post videos on their sites. I mean, why am I reading a pdf case study about the great video solution you've created for this retail chain when I could be watching a video that shows me all the great benefits? You are a video company, right? Well, where are the videos?
Speco Technologies has some decent educational videos on their site, but they're not that easy to find, and you can't link directly to them. Look for the STTV box in the upper right hand corner of the home page. They do offer both Quicktime and Windows Media versions, which is nice for us Mac users, but it's not the most elegant interface.
Panasonic has some pretty cool live demos you can watch, basically streaming video on demand of cameras set up at intersections and in parking lots and what not. Of course, I didn't actually watch them because you had to download some stuff in order to make it work and I didn't feel like going through all that. Also, they've got some great stuff, like the new very cool SDIII, but look at the product description. It just seems silly that they're using tiny little jpegs that you can click on and blow up instead of actual video showing me the image stabilization, etc. It's not that hard to upload a clip to YouTube and then embed it on the page if you don't feel like actually serving the video yourself.
Napco's new web site has some decent live demos, as well, and you don't have to download anything. Check this out. The video quality isn't exactly top-drawer, and there's not much going on in the parking lot they show you, and the feeds kind of cut out from time to time, but you can at least show a quick demo to a potential client, and there's some cool functionality, like being able to watch four cameras at once (not that I actually got that to work, but it seemed like it might work sometimes).
Anyway, I could go on, but if you've seen some good security video sites, send them my way. And if you have some good security video, send it along. Or, better yet, post it on YouTube so I can just embed it and show people what you're doing.

Two new "books" about IP-based video surveillance have been recently published, and they offer an interesting insight into the future of communication and information sharing.
On the one hand, you have Intelligent Network Video: Understanding Modern Video Surveillance Systems, written by Axis Americas GM Fredrik Nilsson and published by CRC Press. It's got a hard cover, is nearly 400 pages, has a thorough index and comes with a CD that's both Mac- and PC-compatible and offers network video design tools. Plus, it's got lots of pretty pictures.
You can currently buy it here for $57.56. (Of course, my copy is signed by the author so is going to be worth gazillions on eBay someday. But don't be jealous.)
On the other hand, you have Security Manager's Guide to Video Surveillance, written by John Honovich, proprietor of www.ipvideomarket.info and a former product development head at 3VR and general manager of Sensormatic Hawaii. It's "published" by www.ipvideomarket.info, runs about 120 pages, does not have an index (but doesn't need one - and I'll get to why), and is about as bare bones as you can imagine, without any pictures, or, really much of a change of fonts or anything that might pretty things up a bit.
But here's the kicker: It's available for free here. And when you download the pdf, it's completely searchable (hence, no need for an index), cut-and-pastable, etc., and, better yet, it's a living document. Honovich has plans to update it two or three times a year (this is actually version 2.0), and it's "open source," meaning you can do with it what you will (as long as you give John some credit), and you can contribute to it, asking questions or suggesting new topics that John will address in future additions.
I've got to say, I'm getting to like this Honovich guy. While Nilsson's book is incredibly thorough and well done (and I'm not going to get into a full review of both books right now), think about what it is: A completely static tome that's being introduced to help you understand modern video surveillance systems, when the very idea of a modern video surveillance system is constantly changing. Sure, CRC Press could publish an update next year, and every year after that, but who's going to spend the $50 multiple times? And how many trees are we going to kill in the process?
Doesn't it make sense to have an online document, like a Wikipedia page, for instance, that offers all of this information on IP video in a way that can be easily updated and is, theoretically, always up to date with current thinking and technology?
Of course, these two books are aimed at different audiences (Nilsson's is for the integrator, Honovich's more for the end user), but much of the content overlaps, despite the completely different approach the books take. Honovich's is much more casual and is presented in a question-and-answer format. Nilsson's is more formal and is presented like the textbooks you had in college. In terms of content right this second, you'd have to go with Nilsson's for total value, but you'd also have to pay $50 for it, and it could be completely out of date in two years. There's a whole lot of value in free, and in getting another free book in six months.
Some people still like the look and feel of a hardcover book, and that does have an attraction. And we obviously struggle with this very issue in house - as in, why publish a "newspaper" every month, when we could put the same content online and have it be fully updatable with new information and not kill any trees? Yeah, well, we're working on that. People still like the look and feel of a physical paper, and advertisers, our life blood, still really like to pay money for print ads while they expect online ads to be much cheaper while at the same time delivering the name, email, and color photo of every single person who sees them (that's a slight exaggeration).
When we all have great portable digital newspaper and book readers, print will completely die. Until that day, we've got a hybrid system with benefits on both sides. Where do you come down?